Os Claim Against VC for Outstanding Freight Coursework

Os Claim Against VC for Outstanding Freight - Coursework ExampleSecondly, it must be determined, if no breach of contract was found to have occurred, whether or not the contract was completed once the beam sailed from Piraeus. The underlying determining factors in both instances are seaworthiness on the part of the transporting vessel (rib Lotta) and/or negligence on the part of Costas captain and crew. Generally seaworthiness refers to the state of the ship and places upon the ship owner a duty to show a seaworthy vessel.1 Since O owns the Costa, it can be assumed that the ship itself is seaworthy in terms of structural soundness or fit for bearing2 otherwise the ship would not have chosen for the journey. The crews competence is relevant in determining the seaworthiness of the vessel. It was held in Wedderburn v Bell that whether a ships construction is sound or not is irrelevant if the ships crew is incompetent or lacks the skills needful for navigating the ship for the durati on of the chartered journey.3 In other words, the seaworthiness of a ship will also depend on the competence of the crew. It was held in sample Oil v Clan Line that a ship may be rendered unseaworthy by the inefficiency of the master who commands her.4 Based on the facts of the look for discussion however, there is no evidence that the captain or his crew lacked the necessary skills to navigate the ship. There is also no evidence of negligence. The fact is, the Costa came across unusual weather and unanticipated delays which ultimately resulted in the loss of transport. By all accounts the master acted promptly and responsibly. The main question is therefore whether or not the contract for the delivery of the freight was completed once the ship sailed from Piraeus. The leading case on the issue is Bank of Boston Connecticut v European Grain & Shipping Ltd (The Dominique). In The Dominique the ship owner entered into a charterparty with the defendant in which payment for freight w as due after the signing of the bills of freight rate. The bills of lading were signed and the ship was subsequently arrested and thus failed to complete the journey. It was held that the ship owner had a right to take up the freight once the bills of lading were signed. Thus the ship onwers right accrued prior to the ships arrest and the chaterpartys termination. Therefore not only was the ship owner entitled to claim the freight, the chaterer was not entitled to offset damages arising out of the breach of a charterparty relative to the freight claim.5 The facts of The Dominique are entirely similar to the facts of the case for discussion. Payment for the freight was due once the ship sailed from Piraeus. Therefore Os claim predates the perils at sea and the subsequent salvage operations. In this regard, O can successfully pursue a claim against VC for the outstanding freight. The action may be commenced by filing an action is rapid eye movement sleep. An action is rem is an act ion not against a ship, although it impacts the ships owner.6 The ship in question is the Jolly Roger owned by VC and purportedly arriving in the UK, which is the only asset that VC will have in the UK. The jurisdiction for filing an action in rem is facilitated by Section 20(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981. In this regard, Section 20(2) of the 1981 Act provides that actions in rem may be pursued in any of the two following circumstances (g)any claim for loss of or damage to goods carried in a ship (h)any claim arising out of any agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship or to the use or hire of a ship.7 In addition, the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court may be invoked relative to an action in rem when (a) the claim arises in connection with a ship and (b) The individual who would be liable on the claim in an action